If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You has been more restrictive than me (for example I set Cleave as useful), but I assume we agree on the main point.

Yeah, Cleave may be in wrong category, but eh.

Originally Posted by etrpgb

I miss the point of the Fighter... isn't the opposite? Bad feats meant bad Fighter?

The feats suck because fighter gets so many of them. Think Spring Attack chain, Weapon Focus/Specialization chain, and so forth and so forth. They can't have been designed on the assumption that you get 7 of them over your entire career. No, the designers thought "hey, fighters get a huge bunch of these", and went from there.

Quotes:

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Claudius Maximus

Also fixed the money issue by sacrificing a goat.

Originally Posted by subject42

This board needs a "you're technically right but I still want to crawl into the fetal position and cry" emoticon.

Originally Posted by Yukitsu

I define [optimization] as "the process by which one attains a build meeting all mechanical and characterization goals set out by the creator prior to its creation."

By designating them as Tier 6, they've got to be a level of uselessness that I just don't agree with, unless you're completely redoing pre-reqs for other feats and PrCs. At that point, we're not poking fun at weirdness of a given rule's interaction with the rest of the game, but clamoring for a wholecloth rewrite. That's been done several times, and so far as I can tell, is not the point of the thread.

The feats suck because fighter gets so many of them. Think Spring Attack chain, Weapon Focus/Specialization chain, and so forth and so forth. They can't have been designed on the assumption that you get 7 of them over your entire career. No, the designers thought "hey, fighters get a huge bunch of these", and went from there.

In short, the Fighter is the albatross around the feat system's neck.

Originally Posted by Keld Denar

+3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.

Knowledge Devotion is poorly designed. It is possible to fail to identify a monster but still gain bonuses to-hit and damage against it even though you haven't got a clue what you are fighting.

Why is this a problem? I don't need to know the particular sub-species of this dire wererhino to know that creatures that are covered in armoured plates can be stabbed in the eyes, or that you can use the weight of such a creature against them to wedge your blade in further...
The same thing exists with the Ranger's Favored Enemy. You might not know one dragon from another, but you know where to stab the lot of them so that they bleed the most.

Originally Posted by Telok

Imagine if the combat system was as well thought out and explained as the skill system. You could cut it down to a page and a half, monsters would be about three sentences long. Best of all you don't have to remember any tables for conditions or detail the special abilities because you've got rulings instead of rules.

Originally Posted by Artanis

I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting

Critical Miss house rules. The most common version is that if you roll a natural 1, you lose the remaining attacks that you have for that round, or have to roll on a chart that involves many very bad options (drop your weapon, break your weapon, hurt yourself, take some sort of penalty until next turn, etc). This strongly penalizes people who add more attacks per round. For example, a Totemist who has 10 attacks (not hard to accomplish by mid levels) will generally have a critical miss every other round. Critical Hit house rules tend to be equally ridiculous for the opposite reason, making perfectly acceptable Tier 3ish classes that make one attack per round a lot weaker.

By designating them as Tier 6, they've got to be a level of uselessness that I just don't agree with, unless you're completely redoing pre-reqs for other feats and PrCs.

The fact that certain horrible feats are used as prerequisites for more useful feats or PrCs does not make them any better. This is called a feat tax.

So you know, university Physics D&D 3.5 Optimization is essentially three seven years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts. Done with supercomputers, access to the textsplatbook collections of five continents and thirty languages with thousands of classes, prestige classes, feats and spells.
On four hours sleep a night.
With no sex.
You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.

Why is this a problem? I don't need to know the particular sub-species of this dire wererhino to know that creatures that are covered in armoured plates can be stabbed in the eyes, or that you can use the weight of such a creature against them to wedge your blade in further...
The same thing exists with the Ranger's Favored Enemy. You might not know one dragon from another, but you know where to stab the lot of them so that they bleed the most.

Firstly, Knowledge Devotion and Favored Enemy do not care about sub-species. They only care about creature type. It has nothing to do with stabbing armor covered creatures in the face, or using their weight against them. It has everything to do with understanding the creature itself.

Secondly, static DC's for checks of this nature giving combat bonuses are bad design. By level 10 it is trivially easy for a cleric to hit the +4 and +5 range on every single check against every single type in the game. This is boring and does not make sense in regards to the game world.

Of course, YMMV, but in my experience most DM's (including myself) find it stupid that you can gain combat bonuses through knowledge when you don't actually know what you are fighting.

Firstly, Knowledge Devotion and Favored Enemy do not care about sub-species. They only care about creature type. It has nothing to do with stabbing armor covered creatures in the face, or using their weight against them. It has everything to do with understanding the creature itself.

This is written where? Because it's certainly not in the feat's description. What is, is entirely consistent with what I have said - as long as you know the general kind of creature, regardless of the particular species, you know the basics of how to hurt it better. If you choose to fluff it in a way that makes no sense, be my guest, but don't blame the feat for it.

By level 10 it is trivially easy for a cleric to hit the +4 and +5 range on every single check against every single type in the game. This is boring and does not make sense in regards to the game world.

So...a devotee of the concept of knowledge, who has surpassed the best and brightest of regular humans four levels ago, knowing how to hurt things is boring and does not make sense?

Originally Posted by Telok

Imagine if the combat system was as well thought out and explained as the skill system. You could cut it down to a page and a half, monsters would be about three sentences long. Best of all you don't have to remember any tables for conditions or detail the special abilities because you've got rulings instead of rules.

Originally Posted by Artanis

I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting

I think it's either in the DMG or Stormwrack, but the rules don't make even the slightest allowance for the depth of the water. As it's written, a millimeter of water will block a harpoon.

I just came up with a new use for our decanter of endless water.

Ride-By Attack and Spirited Charge, by RAW, do nothing. They provide their benefits "when you are mounted and use the charge action". When making a mounted charge, the rider (i.e., the one who is mounted) is not using the charge action. The mount is.

Ride-By Attack is also usually defeated by basic geometry. The Ride-By must continue the line of the charge, which is almost always going to be through your target's square.

If you Trample something with a mount that hasn't got hooves, does it still get a hoof attack?

Pathfinder changed the Mounted Combat feat so that using it is a swift action. Which is used reactively like an immediate action. That would be weird enough, but then they added the Trick Riding feat, which, among other things, lets you use Mounted Combat twice in a turn. I have no idea how that's even intended to work, action-wise. I suspect that whoever wrote Trick Riding forgot or just never noticed that they'd changed Mounted Combat.

(Yeah, I'm playing a mounted archer with a sideline in mounted charger. This is all stuff that I've actually run into.)

My favorite, though, is the lighting rules that depend on the lighting conditions on the observer, not on the thing being observed. Upshot is, if you have one character holding a flaming torch in an large, empty room with no other light sources, another character standing outside the torch's illumination radius cannot see the torch or the character holding it. The character holding the torch can see the character in darkness just fine, though... it's only in the ring of shadowy illumination that you get concealment from the darkness.

For bonus points, combine with the darkness spell that sets the illumination level to "shadowy" rather than lowering it per se. The character in darkness can't see anything, no matter how well-lit, because he's blind, but if he casts darkness on himself, he's no longer in darkness, he's in shadowy illumination, and is no longer blind, and can now see the guy with the torch.

(Pathfinder did fix the darkness bit, but not the fundamental backwardsness of the darkness rules.)

This is written where? Because it's certainly not in the feat's description. What is, is entirely consistent with what I have said - as long as you know the general kind of creature, regardless of the particular species, you know the basics of how to hurt it better. If you choose to fluff it in a way that makes no sense, be my guest, but don't blame the feat for it.

The whole part where you only roll once per encounter per type. The feat doesn't care about individual monsters, only what type they are. This is poor design.

So...a devotee of the concept of knowledge, who has surpassed the best and brightest of regular humans four levels ago, knowing how to hurt things is boring and does not make sense?

That's not what I said, at all. If you want to argue against a straw man, feel free. Monsters get tougher, and more obscure as you level. The fact that Knowledge Devotion does not take this into account is poor design.

The whole part where you only roll once per encounter per type. The feat doesn't care about individual monsters, only what type they are. This is poor design.

What is the difference, in terms of how to damage them, between a 2-HD and 20-HD Skeleton? A 5-HD and a 10-HD animal? A 15HD and a 50HD dragon? They all work the same. Having to make higher checks to get the same benefits, so that at 20th level you have invested one of your seven feats and something like a hundred skill points to get the same +1 to attack and damage you were getting 20 levels ago? That would be poor design.

That's not what I said, at all. If you want to argue against a straw man, feel free. Monsters get tougher, and more obscure as you level. The fact that Knowledge Devotion does not take this into account is poor design.

Monsters get tougher, yes - but more famous, too. Legends are written about many of them, including legends of Brave Sir Stabsalot, who is said to have killed many a [blank] by [blanking] them in the [blank] with a big [blank].

Last edited by Flickerdart; 2011-09-11 at 07:55 PM.

Originally Posted by Telok

Imagine if the combat system was as well thought out and explained as the skill system. You could cut it down to a page and a half, monsters would be about three sentences long. Best of all you don't have to remember any tables for conditions or detail the special abilities because you've got rulings instead of rules.

Originally Posted by Artanis

I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting

Movement During a Charge:
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here's what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. (Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.)

So, no, you can't attack from the side. (By which I assume you mean "charge off to the side", because "from the side" makes no sense in a system without facing and wouldn't help with the geometry problem in any case.)

In further mounted combat nonsense: The mount, again, is the one making the charge. The rider just gets the opportunity to attack at the end of the charge, and derives charge benefits from it if he takes that opportunity. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it means that you can't do the classic lance charge against a Medium opponent while mounted on a standard warhorse. See, the charge doesn't end until the horse makes its attack (and the horse must attack - it's the one making the charge). Warhorses have 5' reach. Lances have 10' reach, and don't threaten at 5'. At the end of the charge, when the rider gets the opportunity to make his attack, he doesn't threaten the target.

What is the difference, in terms of how to damage them, between a 2-HD and 20-HD Skeleton? A 5-HD and a 10-HD animal? A 15HD and a 50HD dragon? They all work the same. Having to make higher checks to get the same benefits, so that at 20th level you have invested one of your seven feats and something like a hundred skill points to get the same +1 to attack and damage you were getting 20 levels ago? That would be poor design.

Please, you can't be serious. The 20th level character of which you speak finds it trivial to hit +4 and +5 to-hit and damage against all enemies in the game, even with my house rule in effect. However, he can't do it at level 9, which is trivially easy if the RAW is played.

Monsters get tougher, yes - but more famous, too. Legends are written about many of them, including legends of Brave Sir Stabsalot, who is said to have killed many a [blank] by [blanking] them in the [blank] with a big [blank].

Please, you can't be serious. The 20th level character of which you speak finds it trivial to hit +4 and +5 to-hit and damage against all enemies in the game, even with my house rule in effect. However, he can't do it at level 9, which is trivially easy if the RAW is played.

You seriously believe that +5 to hit and damage is an effect that's worth waiting 20 levels for? Dear lord, you must think Weapon Specialization is an incredible feat.

Not really a relevant point.

Relevant fluff-wise, which is half of what you're complaining about.

Originally Posted by Telok

Imagine if the combat system was as well thought out and explained as the skill system. You could cut it down to a page and a half, monsters would be about three sentences long. Best of all you don't have to remember any tables for conditions or detail the special abilities because you've got rulings instead of rules.

Originally Posted by Artanis

I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting

You seriously believe that +5 to hit and damage is an effect that's worth waiting 20 levels for? Dear lord, you must think Weapon Specialization is an incredible feat.

How is arguing against that Straw Man going for you? Good? I hope so.

Since you already missed where I explained that Weapon Specialization is not even a feat in my games, I'll just mention it again. Weapon Specialization is given out for free.

Intentionally ignoring what is good and what is bad game design doesn't make your arguments stronger. It in fact makes them weaker, and I can't even figure out what your argument is in the first place (if it's that Knowledge Devotion is good by RAW, then you are objectively wrong).

When you want to actually attempt to address what I am saying, I'll be all ears. Until then, au revoir.

Relevant fluff-wise, which is half of what you're complaining about.

No, it is literally zero percent of what I have said. Everything has addressed game mechanics and what is good and what is bad design. If you don't care what is good design and what is bad design don't assume everybody else is in the same boat.

Since you already missed where I explained that Weapon Specialization is not even a feat in my games, I'll just mention it again. Weapon Specialization is given out for free.

Intentionally ignoring what is good and what is bad game design doesn't make your arguments stronger. It in fact makes them weaker, and I can't even figure out what your argument is in the first place (if it's that Knowledge Devotion is good by RAW, then you are objectively wrong).

When you want to actually attempt to address what I am saying, I'll be all ears. Until then, au revoir.

At what level do you think it would be fair for a character to get +5 to hit and damage from knowledge devotion?

Originally Posted by n00bsticker

No, it is literally zero percent of what I have said. Everything has addressed game mechanics and what is good and what is bad design. If you don't care what is good design and what is bad design don't assume everybody else is in the same boat.

He's saying that the obcurity of the more powerful monsters is countered by their more pronouced roles in myths (and presumably the character's greater knowledge skill).

"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"

Since you already missed where I explained that Weapon Specialization is not even a feat in my games, I'll just mention it again. Weapon Specialization is given out for free.

Intentionally ignoring what is good and what is bad game design doesn't make your arguments stronger. It in fact makes them weaker, and I can't even figure out what your argument is in the first place (if it's that Knowledge Devotion is good by RAW, then you are objectively wrong).

When you want to actually attempt to address what I am saying, I'll be all ears. Until then, au revoir.

No, it is literally zero percent of what I have said. Everything has addressed game mechanics and what is good and what is bad design. If you don't care what is good design and what is bad design don't assume everybody else is in the same boat.

Hilarious accusations, but I'm not going to rise to your bait.

Thinking that Knowledge Devotion's 1-5 bonus should be evenly spread across 20 levels, requiring the appropriate resource investment equal to the better part of anyone's skill points, is patently absurd, but it's what you seem to be advocating. If you really think this is how the feat should work, then you're vastly overvaluing the bonus, and we have no common ground to meet on. Good day.

Last edited by Flickerdart; 2011-09-11 at 10:28 PM.

Originally Posted by Telok

Imagine if the combat system was as well thought out and explained as the skill system. You could cut it down to a page and a half, monsters would be about three sentences long. Best of all you don't have to remember any tables for conditions or detail the special abilities because you've got rulings instead of rules.

Originally Posted by Artanis

I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting